CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glenroyd
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Glenroyd: Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but serious shortfalls in staffing, risk management and staff support.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 and 27 March and 18 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the building and medicines, and reviewed care, staffing and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some shifts were understaffed, dietary information was inconsistent, some incidents were not fully recorded or referred, and environmental risks were found. Medicines had improved, but some creams and eye drops had not been dated when opened.
Care was usually kind, respectful and personalised. People had good access to activities, relatives felt welcome, and inspectors found good records about people's choices and communication. However, training and supervision were not consistent, and some people were not always supported to use hearing aids, dentures or glasses.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive remained Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, meaning the home was not consistently meeting the standards needed for safe, effective and well-managed care.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that staff treated people with dignity, listened to them and supported their choices.
“Staff were polite and courteous to people and listened to what they had to say.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff responded to changes in people's health.
“Each was fully personalised to the individual.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered regular social activities, celebrated birthdays and religious festivals, and welcomed relatives, children and pets.
“Enthusiastic activities coordinators organised a variety of weekly social activities.” from the report
Involvement and choice
People and relatives were involved in care decisions. Staff supported people to make choices and used best-interest processes where needed.
“Throughout the inspection we observed people being offered choice and control by staff supporting them.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including a COVID-19 outbreak during the inspection.
“There was a COVID-19 outbreak during inspection and staff were observed wearing appropriate PPE, including face masks.” from the report
Insufficient staffing
seriousSeveral shifts were understaffed. On one night unit, two staff had to cover a high-needs area, leaving communal spaces without staff presence when they were providing personal care.
“There was a failure to ensure sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff were deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risks not consistently managed
seriousKitchen guidance about food and fluid consistency was out of date. Some incidents were incomplete or not referred, care plans lacked detail for complex needs, and environmental hazards were found.
“Systems had not been established to fully assess, monitor and manage people's safety.” from the report
Training and supervision gaps
seriousSome staff felt unprepared to manage physical behaviours of distress. Training for learning disabilities, autism and complex equipment had been delayed, and regular one-to-one supervision was not evidenced.
“There was a failure to provide appropriate support, training and supervision.” from the report
Sensory aids not always used
needs fixingInspectors observed that people were not always supported to wear hearing aids, dentures or glasses. The manager said more frequent checks would be carried out.
“Some people were not always supported to wear their hearing aids, dentures or glasses.” from the report
Privacy concerns
minorBedroom doors had clear glass panels and were propped open. Privacy film was installed for people who requested it after inspectors raised the concern.
“We spoke with the registered manager about how this could impact privacy.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each unit, especially overnight, and how do they compare with residents' needs?
- 02How do you make sure kitchen staff have the current information about each person's food consistency, fluid needs and choking risks?
- 03What training and supervision has each staff member completed for physical behaviours of distress, learning disabilities, autism and complex equipment?
- 04How are incidents, injuries and safeguarding concerns recorded, reviewed and referred to the right outside agencies?
- 05How do you check that people are supported to use their hearing aids, dentures and glasses, and that their privacy is protected?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about staffing, falls and dignity; inspectors assessed all five key questions, with Safe also including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls but identified a need to develop the approach to essential care givers.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found comprehensive infection control processes. Staff had training in using personal protective equipment, testing was arranged, and plans were in place for possible staff shortages. Visits were taking place in line with current guidance during an outbreak.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new quality rating for Safe or an overall rating, and it did not assess the other four areas.
Infection control
The home had broad processes to reduce the risk of infection for people, staff and visitors.
“The provider had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had training in using PPE safely. Testing was arranged for residents and staff, with safety information and equipment available around the home.
“Staff had received training around the safe use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Planning for staff pressures
The home had plans to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staff shortages.
“Contingency plans were in place should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Team morale
Inspectors were told that staff morale was positive and that the team had worked together to protect people and colleagues.
“We were told about the positive morale throughout the staff team and that management were proud of the way staff and the organisation had worked as a team to protect people they support and colleagues.” from the report
Essential care giver arrangements
minorAlthough visits during the outbreak followed current guidance, the home needed to develop how it allocated essential care givers and how this process was supported by legislation, guidance and oversight.
“We have signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach to the allocation of essential care givers and ensuring this process is supported by the appropriate legislation, guidance and oversight.” from the report
- 01How do you now allocate essential care givers, and who checks that the process follows current legislation and guidance?
- 02What happens to visits when the home is managing an infection outbreak?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are the results used to manage infection risks?
- 04What contingency arrangements are used if COVID-19 or other illness causes staff shortages?
- 05How do you check that non-exempt staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Glenroyd
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.